I've been wondering why loadout(armed attack/defense) and allocated skill points(personal attack/defense) are involved in the total's of overall strength? We all know "loadout and allocation of skill points" have a bigger effect in strength than weapons/warriors used(unless they are really low stats) But it seems to me the higher level you get with the new items available, allocation of skill points is being diminished. Am I right or wrong? I'm not looking for the algorithm or anything, but has the allocation of skill points ever increased in the formula compared to the huge updates on weapon/warrior stats? And before ask, yes I know more skill points you have added will will need a larger % to increase strength, but it does seems not quite right to me when add 1k's in bulk that have saved up to increase strength. One would think be a dramatic change, not minuscule.
Who knows why they are adding skills to totals? To hide the real logic? Somewhere they said, that skills are a multiplier in the big formula. My guess is that the armed items are added to the skills, as for me with or without them is around a 5% difference in strength. If the skills are a multiplier, then its clear that 50000 + 1000 (+2%) skills has a much less impact then a 10000 + 1000 (+10%) skills. If you consider that the Critical Hit Bonus Attack ads a 10-20% randomness to the formula, you need more and more skills to make a difference.
I've noticed this, too. Some players I have been able to catch up to and beat that I used to lose to all of the time. But there are some that I can't catch up to no matter what I do. I can sort of understand active players, but I don't see why I'm not catching up to inactive players when I should be continually getting "stronger" while they are dormant.
